Toymods Car Club Inc: Tech & Conversions => 2TG verses 4AGE Facts !

Toymods Car Club
www.toymods.org.au

F.A.Q.

Home

Members

Toymods » Tech & Conversions » 2TG verses 4AGE Facts ! () 0 Vote(s) Show: Today's Posts :: Show Polls Email to friend

Author

Topic

thetoyman75
Forums Junkie

Club President
I supported Toymods

Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002

Re: 2TG verses 4AGE Facts !	Sat, 01 June 2002 11:28

Bill, Man thats a long post !! But anyway just a few things. I'll try to do them in the same order to make it easier. Cam Lift. Agreed a 4AGE requires less lift to produce equal power and this is attributed to the benefits of it being a multivalve head. Air speed thru a 4AGE head is considerably Greater than a 2TG head. As for Valve Lift. The Stock 88222 head has 10.27mm lift Cams ! The inlet size is only 44.5mm (Not 48mm) however 0.5mm oversize valves are easily installed. For a N/A engine tho it is not required or recommended. Head air speed Velocity doesn't need to be dropped any lower. ! Can't honestly compare squish area only to say it is the 3TGTE that has a problem with it not the 2TG. The 4AGE's may indeed be better but the 2TG design poses no limitations. I am personally aware of a Turbo 2TG pumping out over 500Hp at 24PSI with an unmodified Squish area. Hence I can't see it causing any N/A Issues Bill, 2 Valves verses 4 valves is not in contention ! 4 Valves wins hands down. It is 2TG verses 4AGE that is being discussed. Whilst your 3K and 3SGE comparisons are interesting they are not really relevant to this discussion. And yes a 3SGE s#*ts on both engines from a great height ! I couldn't agree more by keeping things to street applications. And would expand that to stipulate it must run on pump gas ! 230hp from your next street engine ?? Would be very curious to see this considering a Formula Atlantic full race engine peaks at 242HP !! As for stipulating 1600cc for a 2TG. I hardly think that is a reasonable restriction. The addittion of a 3T crank is not only cost effective, it is common place. As is anything up to (and in some cases over) a 3.5mm overbore. A 1900cc plus 2TG is a more than reasonable comparison, we are comparing the 2 engines are we not ? Just because the 4AGE can't be made that big doesn't mean we should discount the point. Oh and as for the 7AGE bottom end being used it is common knowledge that the 7A rods are rather unreliable and the 7A crank does not like to Rev. (Yes I do have 4AGE experience ) Yep I got the Shim over/ Shim under comment arse about I'll fix that up thanks. Bill thanks for the Info re the 4AGE Rods I have had Stock Rods to very regular 8000rpm but not much past there so was curious As for "No reason" to pick a 2TG over a 4AGE. How about things like Ease and cost of install depending on Vehicle. Considering that a large percentage of cars on these forums run an A series or T series Block from factory its an important consideration. Bill, In summary I think it would be fair to say this. In stock form the 2 engines are all but equal in performance. Lets be honest, What the 2TG lacks in Head flow or Intake Velocity it compensates for in Cubic Capacity. !! Thats why in either Stock or Race form they are still matched pretty even. As for a 2TG build cost I'll rough one out for you. I'd love to see the 4AGE equivalent. [Updated on: Sat, 01 June 2002 11:39] [Report message to a moderator]

[Message index]

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Tue Jan 14 23:56:53 UTC 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.0091540813446045 seconds

.:: Contact :: Home ::.